PM 2.5 Continuous FEMs; Update and Assessments For NESCAUM Monitoring Meeting April 29, 2011 Tim Hanley – US EPA, OAQPS 1

Background One of the Primary Objectives of the Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy for State, Local, and Tribal Air Agencies “Encourage the use of continuous …methods…to provide easy access to timely, high-quality, high- resolution air quality data.” Monitoring Final Rule in 2006 included new performance criteria and testing requirements for approval of PM 2.5 Class III continuous Methods Six PM 2.5 continuous methods have been approved as Class III FEMs. 2

Approved PM 2.5 Class III FEMs Met One BAM-1020 Monitor – EQPM Thermo Scientific Model 5014i or FH62C14-DHS – EQPM Thermo Scientific Model 5030 SHARP – EQPM Thermo Scientific Series 8500C FDMS – EQPM Thermo Scientific 1405-DF FDMS – EQPM GRIMM Model EDM 180 PM 2.5 Monitor – EQPM

Summary of Operating PM 2.5 FEMs: Method Description Method Code Monitors Reporting to AQS – Nov. ‘10 Met One BAM Thermo 8500C FDMS18124 Thermo 1405-DF FDMS1821 Thermo 5014i or FH62C14-DHS1830 Thermo 5030 SHARP1842 GRIMM EDM

5

What have we done to help monitoring agencies as they start to use and produce data from FEMs? SOPs - Development of consensus SOPs for PM 2.5 continuous FEMs; first two available now as drafts. While both SOPs are in very good shape there are a few things that need to be updated, especially now that we are seeing the data quality. – Met One BAM 1020 Met One BAM doc 9.doc – Thermo 1405DF FDMS Thermo 1405DF FDMS t09.doc t09.doc – Thermo 8500C FDMS – Recently delivered from STI - looking for Reviewers; please contact Tim Hanley at: Technical Note on Data Reporting - Anticipating new data from PM 2.5 continuous FEMs, OAQPS issued a technical note to address implementation, reporting, and use of the data from FEMs (and ARMs if any become approved) in the SLAMS network: Implementing Continuous PM 2.5 Federal Equivalent Methods (FEMs) and Approved Regional Methods (ARMs) in State or Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) Networks Richard A. Wayland to Regional Air Division Directors, July 24, 2008 PM 2.5 Continuous Monitoring on AMTIC Web Site – Recently reorganized and updated. – 6

7

Information is now available to begin assessing quality of PM 2.5 FEM data 8

Communications: What Planning and Communications have taken place? – EPA – OAQPS and ORD have been meeting to review data assessments and plan next steps – Ambient Air Monitoring Steering Committee AAMSC sub-group with OAQPS, MD, BAAQMD, NYS Discussed with full Steering Committee in SF last December. – Assessments sent to Regional Offices in December, 2010; asked that they be shared with States. – Met, discussed assessments, and received input with each of instrument companies at NAQC in March of this year. – Coordinating with Regional and Multi-State orgs to cover material at several Spring Meetings What Planning and Communications need to be scheduled? – Need to reach out and provide information on assessments to: FEM users – Need to make assessment information available to monitoring agencies contemplating purchase of new FEMs What information would be useful to collect from users to help inform this process? – Key setup, maintenance, and internal diagnostic information (e.g., RH on Met One BAM from periods of high bias when weather was warm/hot). 9

Initial Thoughts on a Framework to Manage PM 2.5 FEM Data Quality Acceptable – Continue Reporting Data Not Acceptable – Review set-up and Operations 1. Assess Data Quality Issues found - Resolve any issues and collect more data No issues found – Coordinate with Instrument Company 2. Review of Setup and Operations Work with instrument company to address any issues found with monitor Compare data quality with other monitoring agencies having similar aerosol and climate 3. Coordination with Instrument Company 10

Action Items Discussed with Ambient Air Monitoring Steering Committee: Completed: Reach out to instrument manufactures to inform them of mixed data quality and ask for input on how to best resolve issues that can be resolved. Reach out to Canada for input on their experiences with the GRIMM. In Progress: Communicate results of assessments to monitoring agencies. Solicit detailed FEM operational information through questionnaire. Future: Need for quick assessment that an agency can initiate on the quality of their data compared to DQOs and Part 53 FEM criteria? Develop confidence interval around NAAQS decision given FEM data quality as found. Development of a concise and straightforward document on what to do if your data quality is suspect or not acceptable? e.g., on the Met One BAM what are the things you can look to investigate if your slope is acceptable and your intercept is unacceptable? verify zero test data was entered correctly in instrument check to make sure that if using analog connections you are accounting for the appropriate range of the electrical signal to match the range of the concentrations Longer term - develop instrument specific Technical Systems Audit (TSA) checklists. Do we need to update our Technical Note on data reporting? Other? 11

Next Steps? 1.Have monitoring agencies review questionnaires and provide feedback on their set, operation, maintenance, and data reporting. – Need to determine if we will work through Region or Multi-State org? 2.Write up recommendations from instrument companies and key insights learned from questionnaires to develop Best Practices for set-up, operation, maintenance, and data reporting that can be appended to monitoring agency SOP’s and/or QAPP’s. Share this information with monitoring agencies. 3.Recommend Monitoring agencies specifically address if they are or are not planning to use a continuous PM 2.5 FEM as a primary monitor in upcoming annual monitoring network plans. Where PM 2.5 continuous FEMs are demonstrated to meet the Part 53 performance criteria used to approve the instrument by comparing to collocated FRMs in an agencies network, we support use of the continuous FEM as a Primary monitor. In cases where a PM 2.5 continuous FEM is not meeting the part 53 performance criteria, we recommend keeping the PM 2.5 FRM as the Primary monitor while working towards improvements in FEM data quality. 12

Assessments Assessments that follow are part of a memo to the PM NAAQS docket: Assessment of PM 2.5 FEMs Compared to Collocated FRMs; Tim Hanley and Adam Reff, OAQPS; PM NAAQS Docket, EPA - HQ - OAR Memo is available at: pdf pdf Detailed one page assessments are available at: – Met One BAM 1020 Assessments - 61 sites – Thermo Scientific Ambient Particulate Monitor with Series 8500C FDMS Assessments - 17 sites – Thermo Scientific Model 5030 SHARP Assessments - 2 sites 13

Met One BAM FEM One-page detailed assessments are available for FEMs that have submitted data to AQS as of Fall sites have Met One BAM 1020 FEM data with at least 23 data pairs (FRM and FEM from the same day) In this ppt - took a look at slope, intercept, and ratio of FRM to FEM concentrations. R was not looked at in detail, but is included in one-page assessments 14

Met One BAM FEM Average slope for all sites = Average slope for sites with an intercept within +/- 2 µg =

Met One BAM FEM 16

Met One BAM FEM 17

Met One BAM FEM 18

8500C FDMS - FEM One-page detailed assessments are available for FEMs that have submitted data to AQS as of Fall sites have 8500C FDMS FEM data with at least 23 data pairs (FRM and FEM from the same day) In this ppt - took a look at slope, intercept, and ratio of FRM to FEM concentrations. R was not looked at in detail, but is included in one-page assessments 19

8500C FDMS - FEM Average slope for all sites = Average slope for sites with an intercept within +/- 2 µg/m 3 =

8500C FDMS - FEM 21

8500C FDMS – FEM Mean Concentration – All Seasons 22

8500C FDMS - FEM 23